User talk:Onel5969/Archive 107

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 107: October 2022

I don't understand why the Expo 2024 page would redirect to the Polish city of Lodz. There is no such event as Expo 2024 anyway, but since I don't know how to delete that redirect page, I simply removed the redirect. If you know how to do it, could you delete the Expo 2024 page? Cheers Nyoome — Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5959, I have seen that you can tag pages without marking the page as reviewed. If I tag a page for maintenance, the check of the NPP toolbar becomes green, and then I have to unreview the page again myself, if I am not so comfortable with approving the article. So my question is how do you do tag an article without marking it as reviewed? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that has changed now, so that when you tag an article, the "mark as reviewed" button no longer is auto checked. But if it is, simply click on it to uncheck it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful reply.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

Hi there... not quibbling with your decision, I routinely send these to G4 since I can't see the originally deleted article. But you state "the substantive deletion rationale neatly summarised as WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice to a second nomination." Are you saying that's why YOU are rejecting the G4? Or that that was the AfD rationale? If the former, cool, thank you, if the latter, where did I miss that? The way I read the AfD, the result was simply, "The result was delete." Again not quibbling, just want to make sure I'm not missing something. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all the NPP work you're doing! As a small suggestion, I wanted to say to watch out when setting the "living" parameter on WikiProject Biography, as I've noticed a few you've done for living people where it's set to "living=no", e.g. Anjali Kusumbe. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up... I never "set" the parameter to "no". When using the rating tool, you have to click on the box to mark it "living", but not clicking it shouldn't mark them as dead. The next time I use that tool, I'll double check after I make the edit, and see if it's an issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, not ideal if it sets "no" by default. I assume the tool creator thought that was a better outcome than them being flagged up on Category:Biography articles without living parameter. Setting it to something appears to be mandatory. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so I just checked, and if you do not check the box, it does default to dead. Thank you so much for spotting that, I'll make sure to always check the box for living in the future. The issue will be when I can't ascertain whether or not the individual is still alive. For instance, sometimes, the article will not have a date of death, and if they were born from 1920 on, there is the chance they are still alive. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess it's up to our best judgement when using the tool in that case. Personally I'd be inclined to say for anyone after about 1920 assume they are alive unless it explicitly mentions they died (doesn't need a date). -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

What are you doing? I have put two sources from a highly credible football site. How can I put a source for the match schedule? What you do is not constructive. Sakiv (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Just left a message on your talk page. The two sources you have put on both of those pages do not include the information in those tables. The tables you have inserted have a place to insert the report for each match. You have used it on other pages you have created (or someone else has). All info on WP must meet

WP:VERIFY. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

10:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You can find the matches in the first source of Mallorca and in the second source of Osnabrück. You are wasting our times for no reason. Tag the articles!--Sakiv (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC

I had a similar experience with respect to blanking content and redirecting page

Additional comments: Also the

WP:GREL and I quote it "There is consensus that The Hindu is generally reliable and should be treated as a newspaper of record". I am sure you would concur as a senior editor. Blanking and redirecting was not the appropriate response before exhausting other suggested options. I have posted this here to seek consensus before I go ahead and add multiple references on a clearly notable article. Best regards Arunram (talk

) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I've declined the revdel request on Beautiful Jersey as it looks to be out of copyright material. As far as I can tell Lennox died in 1906 so in any jurisdiction where copyright in pma+100 or less, it's out of copyright. For the US it was registered for copyright in 1944 but I can't find it in the renewals database anywhere so it looks to be PD in the US as well. Nthep (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You recently turned

Well, if you're going to be lazy and not understand that either target is acceptable (since it is mentioned on both), not much can be done for you. From NSONG: "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @user:Onel5969, I trust you are doing well. In the past few years, I have made some meaningful edits, made mistakes and try to effect correction when my attention is drawn. However, I would like to step up volunteering activities on the collaborative project. Hence, my humble request for mentorship for NPR/NPP in helping reduce the burden on the existing reviewers/patrollers.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Best regards Fatimah (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Talia Or, fascinated 3 October, article begun 4 October, waiting for a review until 5 October, hardly added: orphan tag. I like to first write something substantial and then link. For a person born here, studied there, it would really not be hard to place a link or two, instead of a tag. Just my view. I fixed it now, but imagine I had gone out for hours as planned ... -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, apologies for that, did not see that you had done the article (AWB) doesn't do that, and I missed it when I double-checked. I try not to template the regulars (and certainly not someone of your stature). FWIW, I actually tagged myself yesterday, see this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

that's funny, thank, makes me feel much better --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969,

Thank you for reviewing this article. If possible, I would like to learn the specific reason behind why this article was moved to the draft space, because compared to most articles that were turned to drafts, this article had much more content and better-quality sources (the bulk of the sources coming from academic papers or books). Moreover, none of the sources have a conflict of interest. After the draftification, I tried to back up unsourced bits or remove them for the moment, but the change wasn't substantial, since most of the content was supported by the sources provided. I have the feeling that because I didn't use repeated references, it may have been misunderstood that some full paragraphs (in the History section) were not backed up with sources. Though, in those cases, the sources listed at the end of the section would be supporting them. This would be a mistake on my behalf, which I tried to address in my further edits. Still, I am confused on the exact reason and would be delighted if you were to clarify it and/or give some feedback on

Thank you.

Sorry, I've been off computer since you asked this question. I would have moved it back to mainspace, which you have already done. And Arthistorian1977 has already marked it reviewed. While not required, it's better to make sure that each assertion has a footnote, and the changes you've made are perfectly fine. Thank you for your efforts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I've created The article 1994-95 Toros Neza season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Toros Neza_season

• Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I've created The article 1994-95 Club Puebla season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Club_Puebla_season

• Excuse me Mister
  1994-95 Santos Laguna season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Santos Laguna_season

• Excuse me Mister
  1994-95 Cruz Azul season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95 Cruz Azul season

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoAcosta9 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@HugoAcosta9 to save the owner of this page from replying to your four requests, it is not up to them. It is up to you. Improve the articles with the references asked for, and ensure that each deletion discussion is made ware that you have done so.

Asking in four different sections shows lack of restraint. I have compressed these into one section. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I apologize to you Mister Onel5969, I realized it was a misunderstanding, one of my subsections "Matches" was unsourced, now I include the link and reference. I thought The Banner was speaking about my whole article. I know Timtrent and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Long time no speak. Hope you are well also. To establish notability of a place you need to have in-depth coverage. Obviously, this does not have that. Where did you get the information in the Background section? Was that from some type of government census site? If so, if you include that source, it passes

WP:GEOLAND. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. Sorry saw your note late. Thanks for your suggestion. However I noticed villages and towns with no substantial coverage but exists as they are geographical identity. Sure will try to get references for content in background section. Gardenkur (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. Can you review once as I have added references and let me know if its good to move to main space. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice job! Have moved it back into mainspace. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. Thanking you for helping me on this through your guidance. Would like to associate more with you in making Wikipedia a wonderful platform for informational puposes. Gardenkur (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You can always ask for help, as I said, keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hi user:Onel5969, I recently made changes to the Openserve page and I see that all the changes and reinstatement of the dedicated entry for Openserve was completely rolled back. I need to understand why, as the issues with Openserve having a dedicated page (it was a division of Telkom not a separate entity) has changed. Openserve should no longer be redirected to the Telkom page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasdebruyneFalcorp (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  Being a "seperate entity" is irrelevant. There was an AfD discussion which decided that Telkom should be redirected to the other page. Are you associated with the corporation in some way? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you review these 2 articles when you get a chance? Thank you, Joan Murray Joan arden murray (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I had already reviewed the Millard article last month, and it looks good. I removed a peacock reference in the lead from the Podedworny article. If sources say she was a pioneer, then that should be in the body of the article, with a reference. If they do refer to her that way, then it's fine to put back in the lead. The lead should also be expanded. There is enough stuff in this article that a four-five sentence summary should suffice. Actually, same with the Millard article. Other than that, very nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. will do. JoanJoan arden murray (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you help me please? By accident, correcting Carol Podedworny, I blanked the page. Could you put it back? I don't know what I did. The instructions to unblank it are gibberish to me.Joan arden murray (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Somebody restored it. In the future, if that happens, simply go to the history of the page, and click "undo" on the edit which blanked the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. JoanJoan arden murray (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

You removed a ton of World Ringette Championships event pages which had information collected from the World Ringette Championships article (and was improved) but was removed from the WRC to reduce the size of the WRC article. Can you please explain how this is reasonable considering this content had been approved for years but had only been moved then tweaked? CheckersBoard (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it was uncited. Please see WP policy,

WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

01:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow were you ever right! It looks like it had only one source! I had to figure out how to view the old page. I panicked thinking everything was gone but one source? o_O I can only say thank-you, that article was a yikes lol. Sorry for the trouble :) CheckersBoard (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mount Trumbull, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Trumbull, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a village in Rajasthan. I think it is to be added to Wikipedia. MahendraPrajapatKhejarla (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Then you need to add sources which show that it indeed exists, and is recognized by the government. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries, an admin who has more expertise than I do in these matters will take a closer look, if what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe it is not), they'll remove the tag. You've already voiced this on the talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This page is a about a village and official government reference has been added. MahendraPrajapatKhejarla (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear User @Onel5969,

I request that you undo the auto redirect of the page entitled "McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences," of which I spent hours creating and editing, to the page "McGill University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences." I created this page for the purpose of public knowledge and information. The McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences is an entirely separate organization to that of its parent institution. The McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences has enough significant history, activity, and information to deem a unique Wikipedia page necessary. Furthermore, I have added original sentences with proper citations, according to APA citation stylings. Therefore, your redirect is not valid and your reasoning is unfounded. Please follow up immediately. The information I put on the page was common knowledge and the factual information was cited correctly. There is no reason why the page is being redirected. Justinhandgregory (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

None of which is relevant. What is relevant was the dearth of in-depth coverage of the entity from reliable independent sources, which is the WP policy which was cited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You have been reported to the Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard. McGill University has many other schools and departments listed on Wikipedia that have not been redirected to their parent institutions, some even with more blatant copyright violations. Your reasoning is unfounded and is a misuse of your admin power. Additionally, had you let me work on the page a bit, plenty of in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources would have been added. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify their above comment that you have been reported to the Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard, they opened at discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in which you are mentioned. The topic is Unfounded reasoning and misuse of power for redirection of a page. I only mention this because it doesn't appear that you were actually notified of this. - Aoidh (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the head's up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I appreciate your review of my article however it has been moved to draft-space by another reviewer. I just wanted to let you know that I have submitted it to the article creation queue for assessments and removed your maintenance tags because the article is no longer in the main-space. Kspoty (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969. Eight days ago, you reviewed a page I created, Robert Campbell (artist). Now it's gone. What happened? Can you please help me get it back? Pcaabplroa (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It did not have enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass notability criteria (

WP:GNG). It was redirected to Brass Tacks Press. If you would like to work on it, I could move it into draft for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969, page link has been created. so Mara Rudman is not an orphan page now.- AbuSayeed (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I've removed the tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @

Done. Nice job on the article, keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action! I added a new infobox image to Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij, which explains the relation to its shipyard Fijenoord.Grieg2 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi colleague, the proposed page does have factual bases which have been included in the draft. See e.g. "World Reputation Rankings 2016 methodology". Times Higher Education (THE). 2016-05-04. Retrieved 2022-10-08. Btnls (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a real concept is fine. But not relevant to

WP:GNG. You need several in-depth sources from independent, reliable references which talk about it, in order to show it's notable. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

10:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Two things first. Whenever you leave a message for someone, please remember to sign it with four tildes (~~~~). Second, please leave a link to whatever it is you are talking about. Now about the player, as was said in the edit summary: not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass

WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

10:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Makes no sense in putting a CSD tag on a redirect - the CSD tag goes on the actual article, which when deleted means the redirect is no longer valid and can be deleted. Dan arndt (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I was running copyvio while you were redirecting. When I added it, it was a page. Also, the source you reference in your CSD, doesn't really state its copyright procedure, the second source, which was the one I referenced, should probably be used. Most likely not a big deal. Thanks for your help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem both the article and the redirect have been deleted now. Dan arndt (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't figure it would be... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, today Draft:Habib_Alejalil rejected with the reason "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" but there is enough reliable sources to verify for example [1] [2] [3] can you please look into draft and tell me your opinion about it? ZEP55 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Waiting for reply. ZEP55 (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you have been and still are deleting the content of my articles without at least moving them to draft or putting tags on them for me know whats wrong. Can I ask for you to move them to put them in draft or add tags without deleting please? Larasabri401 (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You'll have to let me know which articles, and I'll be happy to move them to draft for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The Tale of the Travelling Seagull, In the Harbour of Days, The Puppet (Novel), Two Rooms and a Hall Larasabri401 (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. The first one is at Draft:The Tales of the Traveling Seagull 2, Draft:The Puppet (novel), Draft:In the Harbour of Days, and Draft:Two Rooms and a Hall. And they were never deleted, they were redirected to the author's article. And as was said in the edit summary, there are not enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

what is the issue with the biography of the actress

Because that was the consensus of a very recent AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Why did you tag Gaotang Long for notability? There are two sources and a search of Google Books finds quite a few more. Mucube (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It only has two sources, one of which is unreliable. Another issue, although it does not go to notability, is that is has zero footnotes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't use footnotes because I didn't find the need for it. I use both of the sources throughout the entire page.

Second, what is the unreliable source you are mentioning? Mucube (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

And what happens when another editor adds something to the page? Anyway, chinaknowledge is not a reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I will be adding footnotes. But why is Chinaknowledge unreliable? Mucube (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I've seen that you moved the page

Hi. I've moved it back, but right now it has zero independent reliable sources, which is why it was moved to draft to begin with. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, thank you for the intervention. Why do you say it has no independent sources? The article has a link with the proper SAHRA listing details, plus a reference to another catalog, independent from SAHRA (the 'Artefacts' reference). What I want to say is that in my opinion the article satisfies notability and the the independent reliable sources requirement, too.--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Here are five sources that could be used for that article: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/bcci-set-to-launch-five-team-womens-ipl-in-march-2023-1339813, https://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/124105/bcci-considers-5-teams-2-venues-20-league-matches-for-inaugural-wipl, https://theprint.in/sport/womens-ipl-set-to-take-place-in-march-with-5-teams-max-5-overseas-players-in-xi/1166291/, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/ipl/top-stories/womens-ipl-set-to-take-place-in-march-2023-with-5-teams/articleshow/94835731.cms, https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/five-teams-in-womens-ipl-with-22-matches-to-be-played-bcci-8207222/. With these sources, would you be willing to reinstate the article? GreekApple123 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm just fustrated that you Turned my Oggy Next Gen page into a redirect. I don't know how to do the opposite of "not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass GNG, nor VERIFY". PickleAndPeanutFan (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:CIVIL (also a basic/core tenet, though in the user behavior sphere rather than the content one) since I happened to be glancing at your contribs and saw your original reverted edit to this page which was very uncivil.) - Purplewowies (talk

) 04:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Purplewowies what are the examples of in-depth coverages PickleAndPeanutFan (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Purplewowies what are the examples of in-depth coverages PickleAndPeanutFan (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The ofgem reference is perfectly sufficient. Leave it in main space. I notice you disruptively draft a disproportionate amount of articles. Please consider becoming an inclusionist and expand articles instead of letting them languish in draft space where they will be deleted after six months. DonkeyW (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Please consider becoming a competent contributor. I have no idea what you are talking about, since you did not leave a link. And uncivil comments are not really the way to approach someone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sock; blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I made some updates and added some book/journal articles as references as you suggest. Could you please review the updated draft ? Thank you. Inuyasha2021 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Inuyasha2021 I'll take a look in 24 hours or so (ping me if I forget), came across this page through random AFC, ref 5 seems promising but there is likely no significant coverage on the character herself but more on the general story. (although zh wiki redirects zh:破镜重圆 to zh:乐昌公主). Will leave a note on your talk page after review. Justiyaya 18:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I noticed you removed Kondaveeti Venkatakavi page. He is well known poet and has books and movies to his credit. You can verify from other Telugu language wikipedians. He has even an article in telugu wikipedia. I put more information on talk page of article. I reverted changes. Please let me know if you disagree and what else I can do to improve your confidence.

mlpkr (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I may have accidentally unreviewed a page that you reviewed. Lily Goh Bruxton (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It happens. No worries. Thanks for your efforts at NPP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for checking my article on heterostrain. You flagged it with the "needs more citations for verification" which I don't understand. Could you be more precise on what part needs verification? The citations in the article are all from main Physics journals and most of them have been cite several times, up to more than a hundred times for some of them according to google scholar. It seems to me that this satisfies the wikipedia verifiability page. Thanks for your help. Note that I've added a talk page on the article. Maybe a batter place to discuss this?Spaguettovince (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Every assertion needs a reference. So for example, the Etymology section has no reference. And when I reviewed it, the section following that was woefully undersourced. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for sharing the good practice. I've added sources to the Etymology section. I think it is now in order. Do you think I can remove the flag?Spaguettovince (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice job. I've removed the tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!!!Spaguettovince (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969! Do you think CEDAW Alliance Germany is notable? I was on the fence about it during an NPP review and posted a message at the talk page hoping the page creator might have seen more sources. I found a few not cited in the article, but nothing with significant coverage. I came back to it today thinking to maybe take it to AfD. Would appreciate your thoughts! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't find anything in-depth either. AfD is one route. You could draftify, the creator ignored your note on the talk page, so it might prompt them to put some more work into it. I thought about redirecting it to

CEDAW, but the German branch isn't mentioned there. Personally, I'd draftify, but as I said, AfD is also an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Both are great alternatives to AfD. I'm going to go ahead and draftify. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I see you reviewed Stuart Sorbie but I am struggling to see see how this article meets our notability guidelines in its current state. Can you let me know which refs you think assert this sufficiently? This is especially an issue as the article creator has recently created many articles which have dubious or no notability. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

That looks like a misclick on my part. I remember looking at it either yesterday or this morning, and I looked through the 10 sources, none of which go in-depth about the person (although there is one decent article which is about them). I thought I had tagged it for notability, but with the new curate tool defaulting to "not reviewed", not sure how that happened. Yes, this editor is creating numerous articles which last year would easily have passed AfD, but with the recent changes, no longer do. Very nice catch. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries. The source you suggest may be "decent" is possibly the one with almost entirely interview quotation. I saw this article flag up in new pages list and was somewhat bemused it had been reviewed without highlighting the referencing issue (this editor seems to be making many similar type articles recently). As you say, not long ago it may have been received more kindly when

WP:NFOOTY was a thing, but not now. If it's a mistake then no worries! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs}

) 19:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I already went back and prodded it. Fram is having quite an issue with this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

In the case of Jan Mikulka, your suspicion of a conflict of interest is absolute nonsense and an affront to my professional honour. I founded the Art Library project in the Czech Wikipedia, where there are almost 1200 entries and I select artists only with regard to their importance. One of the entries is the Studio of Classical Painting Techniques of Prof. Zdeněk Beran and I am gradually adding entries of his students who have made a mark abroad with their work. I have no family ties with the artist, I do not own any of his works and I have only communicated with him in the process of arranging the copyrights needed to publish the paintings. The article is, in my opinion, adequately referenced to sources.--NoJin (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

So you do admit you have a relationship with them. Please follow

WP:COI. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a relationship"? I have only relationship with Czech art in general as author of the Art Library project, but none of listed in

WP:COI.--NoJin (talk

) 22:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You have been in communication with them. That's COI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I insist that I have no family, client, financial, employer or other ties to the artists for whom I have written Wikipedia articles. I am originally a molecular biologist and write articles in my spare time. I have never written anything for hire and I am very scrupulous about protecting my right to choose my own topics. Of course, I had to get their permission to publish the work, but I often take the photographs myself so that I don't have to ask the author or photographer. Jan Mikulka is one of dozens of Czech artists whose articles I have contributed. The fact that I provide illustrations of artists' work makes my project special and has been recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation with an article on its blog.--NoJin (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I saw you've redirected the page

The La Nación article is about the school, and only includes a brief paragraph. The Página 12 is an interview, which is a primary source, and therefore doesn't go to notability. The book about the faculty's history is a primary source, having been published by the university. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

And finally... I give you the AfD. Got any silver bullets and garlic? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I can understand why you’ve removed my pages about the Dutch footballers and the st Vincent and the grenadines goalkeeper, but what independent sources am I supposed to find about fourth tier Dutch footballers and a 20-year-old goalkeeper from a small Caribbean archipelago? Sorry if this come across as sarcastic but I’m just looking for advice on sources Jackoooo45 (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. And thanks for reaching out. That's kind of the point about GNG. Just because they played football, doesn't necessarily make them notable. The guidelines have changed in the past year. There used to be an SNG (Specific Notability Guideline) for footballers, but so many stub articles were being created about players where there wasn't a lot of coverage, that the SNG was deprecated, so now

WP:TEAHOUSE or on the project pages for those subjects... in this case I would guess Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands. Hope that helps.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

01:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Whitlock Cienega, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitlock Cienega, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hog Farm _Talk 15:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, could I ask you to please reassess the quality status of Plasmodiophore? I think it no longer is a stub. Snoteleks (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not! Have changed the status (but you can do that yourself, you know). Thanks for pointing it out! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't want to do it myself since I don't really know how to assess the quality of articles, it would've been my first time and I'd rather let an experienced user do it. Snoteleks (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yampai, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yampai, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 18:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wood Springs, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wood Springs, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wingfield, Yavapai County, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingfield, Yavapai County, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 18:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wingfield, Coconino County, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingfield, Coconino County, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 18:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Is still in my draftspace,

dino (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If you click on the editor's resources, and then the links for news and books, I think you can find enough references. This is a well known hymn (I happen to know all the lyrics myself). There's this, this, and this, and that was just on the first page of the search of news. This was on Books. So the sources are out there. Give it a whack and ping me and I'll have another look. I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do with it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Willow Spring, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow Spring, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 19:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Willow, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 20:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Wickchoupai, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wickchoupai, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tonto Estate, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonto Estate, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rose Creek Lodge, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Creek Lodge, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aztec Lodge, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aztec Lodge, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dehorn, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dehorn, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For the reviewer whose name I am always grateful to see. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

What convinced you to add the "notability" tag to this article? I think the sources in the article (and other references in the ODNB entry, here) indicate references in secondary sources going back 300 years. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. And first of all, thank you for your contributions to the project. I've reviewed quite a few articles you've created, and have always enjoyed them. Second, in response to your question, mostly since there are only two refs used in the article, and one of them is primary. I'm pretty sure they are notable, it's just right now, the footnotes are a tad thin. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added this source (p. 67) to the "Further reading" section. Combined with this source (p. 178) and the ODNB entry, do you think that is enough to remove the tag? I realise the inline citations are slight, but they are reliable. And notability is established by the "Further reading", in my view. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Nice job. Keep it up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article La Cienega, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Cienega, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Noah, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

When you get a chance, could you please change this artist's name to Molly Lamb Bobak. She was a friend of mine and always preferred this form of her name. I have tried several times to change it but couldn't. Thanks, as always, Joan arden murray (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Will do, but you should not edit the article, as you have a

WP:COI issue. In the future, please request changes to be made to any artist you have a connection with. Or ping me and I'll take a look. Wouldn't want to see a valuable contributor like you get in trouble. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Will have to wait a bit, clearly, as per

WP:COMMONNAME, it should be Molly Lamb Bobak, but there is a redirect which is blocking the move. Normally I could do a three-way move, however, back in 2012, the info from Molly Lamb Bobak was cut and paste to the new article, Molly Bobak, and a history merge needs to be completed first. If you could keep your eye on the article, after the histmerge is completed, I'll be happy to move it for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!! and for the good advice too!Joan arden murray (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries. And done! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Glad about that, puts icing on the cake! Thanks, Joan.Joan arden murray (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. I was going to split Aurora (singer) and I saw that in the past you objected to that split. Would you still object, or do you agree it is time to do it with the article now over 140k? --Muhandes (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out... no, it looks long enough to qualify... go right ahead. Just remember to leave the correct attribution in your edit summary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing, happy editing! --Muhandes (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kool Corner, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kool Corner, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I created the article Qdot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Qdot) with references in line with Wikipedia guidelines but maybe it wasn't enough because the article was drafted but the article was recreated with only blog References (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qdot) and it is still on the Wikipedia space. I am confused. Can you help me to check the two pls?

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Engesser Junction, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engesser Junction, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, letting you know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. R. Kesavan given you previously PRODed the article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Non-load bearing wall and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#Non-load bearing wall until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 65.92.244.114 (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Achi, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achi, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angell, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angell, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 04:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peters Corner, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peters Corner, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oit Ihuk, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oit Ihuk, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

You moved to draft but it has been returned to main without much improvement. In view of COI or UPE issues may be AfD 'ready'! Eagleash (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Sir I tried to resolve few issues and revised the article Maniklal Sinha. Kindly see once. Srikrishna1960 (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blaisdell, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaisdell, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growler, Arizona (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Have been working on Educational Universities and Colleges in India. Kindly Understand Regional college of Pharmacy is affiliated college of Rajasthan University of Health Sciences. It cannot be redirected to parent University.

I was Expecting others to add up in the page. For the same have i have recovered it back for further additions. Ansh.cardiff (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. It does not meet standards for

WP:GNG. You need in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Have Put Citations from

1) Pharmacy Council of India which is the Government Approved Pharmacy Council that provides approval to pharmacy Colleges // Most Reliable Pharmacy Body in India

2) Rajasthan University of Health Sciences which is the Government University which Affiliates the Colleges // Most Reliable Pharmacy Body in Rajasthan

3) AICTE which is the Government Body which checks the regularity of Education in India.

4) Rajasthan Pharmacy Council - A Council which approves the Certificates of Students after passing.

Kindly Guide further Ansh.cardiff (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Have added Few Journal Citation and other references also - Can You please guide Ansh.cardiff (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I have declined the speedy deletion of Nik Omar Nik Abdul Aziz, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because the recreated article is not substantially identical to the originally article deleted at AfD, and thus is not eligible for deletion under the G4 criteria. The originally deleted article consisted of only a sinle line of text, 1 infobox, 2 refs and 1 external link. This does not precluede a re-nominaton for deletion via AfD. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Why do you find this article is an advertisement? - because of too long description of projects? I doubted about that but thought it was important information gathered together, although of course some links for specific projects are not independent. But there are other independent links to AI. If such a long list of projects looks too advertising - ok, I can shorten it, leaving only the most important projects of the foundation. The foundation is one of the most important organization supporting science, at least in Western Europe, so just deleting the article does not seem a good solution. Mlarisa (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it is simply a promotional brochure. It needs a complete re-write as is. And yes, I would drastically shorten the projects listings. Anything which is sourced by a primary source I would get rid of. Also, keep the article about the foundation, not about Zimin himself (e.g. the Carnegie Award was to him, not the foundation). If you would like I could move it into draft so that you can work on it if you would like.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Araby, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araby, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life with Luca until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Los Burros, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Burros, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natches, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natches, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nariska, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nariska, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I published a working draft of a biology list yesterday, List of Odonata species of Senegal. Thanks for taking interest in the article and improving it. I'm a little confused on some of the material that was removed because of apparent copyvio, though. The linked website (https://pixels.com/featured/california-dragonfly-mariola-bitner.html) contains none of the text from this article. Most of the text portions of this article are in fact copied or adapted from another wikipedia list, List of Odonata species of Sri Lanka. I intended to note this somewhere when completing the rest of the references as I polish up the list. I suppose I should have added an 'Under Construction' template to the top of the page. How should I proceed? -NoahElhardt (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries, when copying like that is unattributed, it is usually assumed to be a copyvio. But with what you say above, that is most likely a mirror, feel free to remove the revdel template, and rev my deletion of the material. But please provide the appropriate attribution when you do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up some AfC reviews! S0091 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries... now that NPP is under control, will do some work over there... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dar Al Sharq Group, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dar Al Sharq Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Good morning One! Hope you're doing well.

I just received a notification a tag was placed on a draft I just moved to the article space. This draft was reviewed by many contributors (for weeks) who brought forth great feedback. I applied all of it, ranging from citations to legal details removal and the use of last names in BLPs.

Every information in this article is backed by independent press coverage from international (Le Parisien, France, Shepherd.com), nationwide (Yahoo!) and local sources (municipalities in GA, Shoutout Atlanta and Voyage Atlanta, which I just came across and was just published 10/27/2022).

Reviews and critical reception on publications have been added word for word and can be verified through retailers' sources (which I did not include to avoid promotion and advertisement per BLPs guidelines).

The subject has a Google knowledge panel, which is an index of notability and visibility that can only be attained to Google's discretion.

External links and overall template are modeled over this one.

I see many articles in the disambiguation page for Andre Soares (similar names) with less coverage, less sources and less indexes of notability.

What would you like for me to correct on this page?

--

Thank you again and I hope you have a great weekend. A1ProtocolX (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, first, I'd love for it not to read like a promotional brochure for the individual. Second, I'd like for it to have more in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. Please remember that interviews do not count towards notability. And third, every assertion in the article needs to referenced from a reliable source. This style of editing makes me think you might have some personal connection with the subject. If so,

WP:UPE might apply. Do you have such a connection? Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response! I have no connection to the subject nor am I compensated for this. I came across his works during book club sessions (in college) and discussions. I was asked that and clarified it a few weeks ago while performing my first edits. What would you suggest to reach a more neutral tone? My intent was never to promote, which is why I kept the critical reception section as minimal as possible and removed the influences section I added a few weeks ago to avoid notability-by-inheritance.

I'll be happy to remove any information that seems like paid, contracted work or promotion. A1ProtocolX (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mumurva, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumurva, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 19:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I am Ameer, I have created the articlePoovan (film) recently and during the editing another editor interrupted and added some tags early before I complete the article. due to the edit conflict, lost some more data which I had been working on. Now I've completed and could you please check.? Ameer al safar (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I couldn't get to this yesterday. Another editor has already marked it reviewed, so all's good. In the future, if you are working on developing an article, you might consider working on it in draftspace, first, that way, no one will interrupt your development. Even if an article is only a few minutes old, reviewers don't know whether you are done or not. I know that can be frustrating, so consider the draftspace option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Good evening! I noticed that you reverted my revision to the By the Way Tour article. Should I make my revision more complete? Chris25689 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Take a look at

WP:NTOUR, you need in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources to show that it's notable. Interviews are primary, so don't count. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

14:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Definitely helpful! Thanks!

Chris25689 (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Good morning! I have two questions about secondary sources:

1. Could the secondary sources just be about individual concerts of the tour, or they have to be about the whole tour.

2. I reference that used in my revision was from the Red Hot Chili Peppers Live Archive, which is used as a reference in articles of other RHCP tours, such as the

2022 Global Stadium Tour

. The footnote states that it "is an unofficial website and is in no way affiliated with Red Hot Chili Peppers, their management and/or record label. The contents on this website are exclusively for informational purposes." Therefore, should it be considered as a secondary source?

Thank you!

Chris25689 (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to the title. But in addition, just make it a draft again instead of deleting my work. ADHD Ginger Boi.#ALM2M [[User:ChiserYT|ChiserYT]] ([[User talk:ChiserYT|talk]]) (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel, I’ve effected all changes you suggested to article Becoming Abi. Kindly check it out.

Thank you B.Korlah (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice job. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel, a couple of days ago you declined my submission due to a suspected conflict of interest. I just messaged the Articles help team for next steps and they said to just explain my relationship (or lack of) to Matt White.

A friend of my climbs and competes at the national competitions in the UK. I first saw Matt White in the 2021 Nationals. Then again later this year in a few events including some of the Nationals. Whilst I’ve seen him climb (and heard lots of people talk about him and his story) I’ve never actually met him and he doesn’t know who I am (I promise I’m not stalking him).

Do you need anything else from me to help resolve this?

Thanks. Trevor Stocall (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the COI, yes, your above explanation is good enough. However, while the climber is accomplished, none of the sourcing is in-depth about him. Currently he does not meet either

WP:NSPORT. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

10:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. First hurdle over lol.

Now for the ‘notability’… This is my first article and I would have thought that each of the results pages meets the criteria for verifiable sources. I was unable to find lots of articles about Matt White, but the British Mountaineering Council (BMC) pages came up (with a secondary set of info about the result). Would that be sufficient?

Sorry to be a pain and thanks in advance Trevorstocall (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'd have to take a look. What you want is at least three independent sources which go in-depth about the climber. If the BMC is independent, and reliable, than that would work for one of them. I did a brief

WP:BEFORE, and I can't come up with any in-depth coverage, but there might be local sources I don't have access to. I'm more than willing to take a look at the article as you work on it and offer suggestions. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. I’ll keep working on it and get back to you in a couple of weeks. Thanks for your help Trevorstocall (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for noticing the copyvios in the AfC contribution I recently accepted. I was obviously focused too much on notability, so I didn't run a copyvio check against the given sources. Good catch! Felix QW (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries, that's why we have safety nets. In reviewing, I usually do the copyvio ck first, since if that's positive, everything else is irrelevant. Thanks for your contributions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

But I do agree with your notability assessment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I edited the Gonzalo Lira page at the same moment as it was draftified. I've deleted my edit but I presume something needs to be done to the page now? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No. It's being taken care of. Feel free to work on the existing draft,

Draft:Gonzalo Lira Onel5969 ^{TT me}

14:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Not enough references? There were at least 8 references, while you redirected the page to a section with even less references, that is zero. That's the text I started with, and I was manually adding the references; I added three books just seconds before you reverted, and I was going to add others. Well, I am going to. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi

WP:VERIFY one.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by that, other pages I saw are also like that. Maybe you could take them down. Why you are just noticing this specific page is the same could be said for other similar pages? Omega2330 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you're talking about. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)